Ousia and physis are practically synonymous. They only differ in connotation. It's like the difference between the words "hit" and "strike".

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divineEssence = lifeEssence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divineEssence = lifeEssence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?

So even though our soul experiences death, it still is immortal and continues to exist. Cannot the same be said of Christ in that even though His Divine nature experienced death, it is still immortal and continues to exist?

So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divineEssence = lifeEssence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?

So even though our soul experiences death, it still is immortal and continues to exist. Cannot the same be said of Christ in that even though His Divine nature experienced death, it is still immortal and continues to exist?

Faulty comparison. The human soul is created, and so while it exists forever after God makes it, there is a moment when it comes into existence, before which it does not exist. For the human being, death means that the body goes to the grave whilst the soul goes elsewhere, but the human is still dead--there is still a qualitative difference of the person's essence before and after death.

The eternal Son/the Logos/the Godhead/the divine essence of Christ did not come into existence, but is co-eternal with the Father. It has no body. It cannot die. If it can, then you are saying God's essence can change. But we know from faith that God is eternal and immutable.

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Emmanuel our God was hung upon the woodand the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.His spirit alone left him on the wood.His essence departed not from his body.He left human life*, not the eternal. The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,Alleluia, woe to them forever.

In perfect accordance with the passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria that I quoted.

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

I'm in agreement that the spiritual part of the soul separates from the body and is alive and conscious when one dies, it does not cease to exist; so yes the Divine Nature was part of that, so in that sense it didn't die. But the Divine Nature was also part of the whole man which died, there I believe the Divine that was one with it died the same way any other human would die because Christ was made in all things like we are and therefore suffered and died in all ways like we do (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15).

I'm trying to figure out how what you guys are saying isn't similar to Doceticism.

See Inquirer you are saying that the Lord did die but it doesn't sound like he actually completely died. See the Divine One, the Son, actually had to die for real, as I see it, for him to actually make it so he could take divorced Israel back as a new man with a new marriage contract (Jeremiah 3; Romans 7:1-6). I can't see this how can be if it was only a human death and not a divine one as well. The whole point of him assuming flesh was so that he could die, which before in his previous state was impossible.

Emmanuel our God was hung upon the woodand the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.His spirit alone left him on the wood.His essence departed not from his body.He left human life*, not the eternal. The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

I'm in agreement that the spiritual part of the soul separates from the body and is alive and conscious when one dies, it does not cease to exist; so yes the Divine Nature was part of that, so in that sense it didn't die. But the Divine Nature was also part of the whole man which died, there I believe the Divine that was one with it died the same way any other human would die because Christ was made in all things like we are and therefore suffered and died in all ways like we do (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15).

I'm trying to figure out how what you guys are saying isn't similar to Doceticism.

See Inquirer you are saying that the Lord did die but it doesn't sound like he actually completely died. See the Divine One, the Son, actually had to die for real, as I see it, for him to actually make it so he could take divorced Israel back as a new man with a new marriage contract (Jeremiah 3; Romans 7:1-6). I can't see this how can be if it was only a human death and not a divine one as well. The whole point of him assuming flesh was so that he could die, which before in his previous state was impossible.

Tony

Do you believe God the Father can die? What about God the Holy Spirit?

If your answer to that is no, then how can you believe that God the Son can die? Presumably because of the hypostatic union. In that sense, nobody is denying that God the Son died on the Cross. There is no disagreement there.

Docetism is "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." Nobody that has posted in this thread thus far has believed that. Chalcedonians and Miaphysites say that Christ is true God, true Man, both divine and human, inseparable but unconfused. Docetists would argue that Christ is true God in the illusion of a man.

Emmanuel our God was hung upon the woodand the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.His spirit alone left him on the wood.His essence departed not from his body.He left human life*, not the eternal. The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

Tony

I do not think anybody is saying that. Nothing in ME's hymn suggests that when Christ died, his natures "separated' or anything like that. His soul descended unto death, still both human and divine.

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Okay what do you call the heresy: The Son of God didn't suffer and die on the cross, only the Son of Man? To me it sounds similar to this.

I believe the Son of God could die because he became a human, that's why.

Tony

"The Son of God didn't suffer and die on the cross, only the Son of Man" - Nestorianism, or Radical Dyophisitism that undermines the hypostatic union.

"I believe the Son of God could die because he became a human, that's why." - Exactly, there is no dispute here. Nobody is saying the Son of God did not die. But if you're saying he only COULD die because of his humanity, then you're saying only his human essence died. His body gave up the ghost (forgive the Latinism). If his divine essence died, that is like saying God the Father or God the Holy Spirit died, is it not?

Your difficulty seems to be that saying only one of his natures died means he only "half" died, or his hypostatic union ceased to be. That is not what I am saying. Jesus is true God, true Man. Thus, on the Cross died true God and true Man. When I say his divine essence did not die, I am merely saying that the eternal Son/Godhead cannot go into the grave, and neither can the Father or the Holy Spirit, because they are not bodily mortals. God could go into the grave because of the Incarnation and for no other reason.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:59:37 AM by Inquirer »

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Emmanuel our God was hung upon the woodand the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.His spirit alone left him on the wood.His essence departed not from his body.He left human life*, not the eternal. The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

I believe the Son limited himself in terms of his abilities. Like if he wanted to he could have made himself immortal and just obliterated every enemy of his right there and then. But he didn't. He became a servant human that served God the way we all should have right from birth. He limited himself to needing to eat, sleep, urinate, have his behind wiped by his mother when he was a babe, grow in knowledge, etc. He was a real guy like all of us. Now he could never have done such a thing without the permission and power from his Father though (I'm Subordinationalist Trinitarian). I believe that the Son is only everything he is because it comes from the source, the Father. He could take up his life again because his Father gave him the ability. He has all authority given to him because his Father gave it to him. He knows all men because his Father gave him that ability. The Father clearly has not given it to the Son know the day or the hour though. Just like the mouth/word of man is subject to the mind, so also the Son is subject to the Father. But the Son in ability could have disobeyed his Father but not in nature and character (like how I could never rape and pillage). So though the weaknesses of his human fleshly nature didn't want to suffer and die, yet it was the Father's will be done and not his own for he always does the will of his Father without exception (not like us) being in very nature the Son of God who is of the Father's substance.

So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?

Why I asked this question was an acquaintance of mine said that EOs do not believe that the divine part died but the OOs do. He was telling me that EOs beliefs are sort of Gnostic-like in this respect but not the Miaphysite OOs. But it seems you guys believe in the same thing in this respect. I'll need to think in my mind if we are on the same page or not.

That's not subordinationism. Subordinationism says that Christ has a different and inferior nature to the Father's nature.

Question: Where is your theological info coming from? Mostly from this friend of yours?

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 02:29:20 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

I believe the Son limited himself in terms of his abilities. Like if he wanted to he could have made himself immortal and just obliterated every enemy of his right there and then. But he didn't. He became a servant human that served God the way we all should have right from birth. He limited himself to needing to eat, sleep, urinate, have his behind wiped by his mother when he was a babe, grow in knowledge, etc. He was a real guy like all of us.

OK. I mean, I don't usually like using such informal terms as "guy" in a Christological discussion, but OK, everything you just wrote I could agree with.

Quote

Now he could never have done such a thing without the permission and power from his Father though (I'm Subordinationalist Trinitarian). I believe that the Son is only everything he is because it comes from the source, the Father. He could take up his life again because his Father gave him the ability. He has all authority given to him because his Father gave it to him. He knows all men because his Father gave him that ability. The Father clearly has not given it to the Son know the day or the hour though. Just like the mouth/word of man is subject to the mind, so also the Son is subject to the Father.

Because you identify yourself as a Subordinationist, I don't know if I can agree with you on all this. I think most of these statements could be interpreted in an orthodox manner but I don't really know that I am convinced you are doing so.

Quote

But the Son in ability could have disobeyed his Father but not in nature and character (like how I could never rape and pillage). So though the weaknesses of his human fleshly nature didn't want to suffer and die, yet it was the Father's will be done and not his own for he always does the will of his Father without exception (not like us) being in very nature the Son of God who is of the Father's substance.

Who says you could never rape and pillage? Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.

So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?

The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?

The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.

Can the human nature do anything of itself, like die?

Sorry. My previous post was misleading. I was saying 'precisely' to the statement "The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died."

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Who says you could never rape and pillage? Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.

I'm saying it. I'm very certain that I could never do anything such as that. Maybe before I came to know the Messiah, but even then, not entirely sure, although I did other very heinous things and thought to do them. Sweet little babies grow up and learn from what is around them, and are highly susceptible to influence from the Evil One at that time.

Who says you could never rape and pillage? Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.

I'm saying it. I'm very certain that I could never do anything such as that. Maybe before I came to know the Messiah, but even then, not entirely sure, although I did other very heinous things and thought to do them. Sweet little babies grow up and learn from what is around them, and are highly susceptible to influence from the Evil One at that time.

Tony

You're fooling yourself, Tony. We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us.

That's not subordinationism. Subordinationism says that Christ has a different and inferior nature to the Father's nature.

I was looking it up last night. It seems there are many forms of what is called this. It seems to me that I am. Most Trinitarians (from what I can tell) believe that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal in every single way like the Son. Though it seems there is some Subordinationalist type understanding in Orthodoxy, which westerners many times take as false teaching. I think this Subordinationalism is just in regards to autrhority structure with the Father as head, if I'm not mistaken.

Question: Where is your theological info coming from? Mostly from this friend of yours?

No. But when he told me this it shocked me, because I told him I was considering Orthodoxy, and I told him I didn't understand why there was such division over the Chalcedonian vs Miaphysitism because to me it seemed that it was just semantics. This is how I have viewed it. I thought that it seemed a bit over the top for there to be contention, seeing as this is mainly just philosophical expounding on what Scripture says, and I don't think Scripture actually goes this deep. Anyway then he told me that the Chalcedonian view was gnostic as per his understanding. Anyway, to be fair, he said that was his understanding and that I should look into it myself, so obviously he was uncertain if he was correct.

You're fooling yourself, Tony. We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us.

Mor Ephrem, I don't think so. It's close to as bad as saying that I'm only fooling myself if I say I would never kill my mother, slice her up, and eat her. I could never do that. How could I do that? Am I totally depraved with this sinful nature inside me that I cannot cease to do evil and learn to do good?

I also want to point out if I did anything heinous like those things that I am confident I would lose my salvation and damn myself to the Lake of Fire forever, with no hope of being restored. "I we sin willfully after we come to the full knowledge of the truth... "

You're fooling yourself, Tony. We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us.

Mor Ephrem, I don't think so. It's close to as bad as saying that I'm only fooling myself if I say I would never kill my mother, slice her up, and eat her. I could never do that. How could I do that? Am I totally depraved with this sinful nature inside me that I cannot cease to do evil and learn to do good?

Tony

Just in the last day or two, a man my age beheaded his mother on one end of a street in New York, dragged her body to the other side, and kicked her head back where he started. Then he went to a train station, jumped in front of a moving train and killed himself.

Did he ever think he could ever do that to his mother? Did his mother ever think her son could do that to her or to anyone?

It's not that you or I are so totally depraved that we cannot help but commit evil acts. But when we think that certain sins are so heinous that we are incapable of doing them, this is implicitly a judgement that we are better than "those people" (the ones who are capable of doing such things). Where that pride enters, a fall is imminent, and often our fall is related to the source of our pride. At least this is my personal experience.

Just in the last day or two, a man my age beheaded his mother on one end of a street in New York, dragged her body to the other side, and kicked her head back where he started. Then he went to a train station, jumped in front of a moving train and killed himself.

Did he ever think he could ever do that to his mother? Did his mother ever think her son could do that to her or to anyone?

It's not that you or I are so totally depraved that we cannot help but commit evil acts. But when we think that certain sins are so heinous that we are incapable of doing them, this is implicitly a judgement that we are better than "those people" (the ones who are capable of doing such things). Where that pride enters, a fall is imminent, and often our fall is related to the source of our pride. At least this is my personal experience.

For the record, my mother is alive and well.

I understand your concern. But I am not saying this because I am be prideful that I'm better than people who would.

First, I was using it as an example of how the Messiah be had a human nature like us, was made in every way like us, tempted in all points like us, had the ability to sin just like us, but he could not do it because, "How could I in the least bit disobey my Father?" And I my example was something extreme that I am absolutely sure I would never do.

I don't think this has anything to do with, "I thank you that I am not like other men..."

I believe it is possible for me to fall away from my faith. I've had some close calls. God merciful to me in my ignorance, some of which was even willfull. But we ought to know ourselves. If one is not so steadfast and confident in his walk with God that he knows he would not do such horrible acts, I have to question whether that one has really been through a genuine repentance and faith proven by deeds which the Bible requires.

Imagine me going to my wife on our wedding day and saying, "I love you and I promise to do my best in our marriage, but you should know, I might mess up and fall into adultery here and there, and I hope you bear with me in this if it happens." Is she going to want to marry me after that? I don't think so. To think that there is a possibility I might be unfaithful will turn her away. I mean I've already said I might do it. Why should she take the risk when it seems I have some guile? Now compare that to approaching God. "God forgive me, I repent, but I might still go out and get drunk and fornicate every once and a while, because I'm not perfect, and I just want to be humble."

Have you ever read the "prideful boastings" of the early saints to their Roman opponents like the Octavius vs Cecilius debate?

As long as we are sincere in our hearts and don't think more highly of ourselves then we ought to and pray, "Deliver us not over to temptation but from the evil one," I have confidence in God we'll overcome, as long as we are emptied of guile.

If you go over to my website's (Www.TheLoveOfTheTruth.Weebly.Com) home page, you'll see a video there exposing modern day mainstream Christianity and the heinous things done by them. And the main reason I think Christians today are so capable of doing such things is because of the saved in sin gospel.

Tony, Mor is not suggesting that we approach our commitments flippantly and without resolve. However, the truth is that we do mess up, and most of the time we cannot foresee our mistakes.

I used to be a devout Jew and I assured everyone I knew that I would be Jewish for the rest of my life. I was on my way to moving to a religious community to live the rest of my life when one night, while under a fever, I became an atheist. Now, I'm an Orthodox Christian. How could I have foreseen my life's trajectory? Granted, I didn't murder anyone, but I certainly did not anticipate become militantly anti-religious (which came with a plethora of blasphemous sins) before then joining the one religion I at the time had opposed the most (Christianity).

I know people who vowed they would never have sex before marriage, but they did. Do you think those people were supposed to be immune to temptation because of their commitments?

Tony, Mor is not suggesting that we approach our commitments flippantly and without resolve. However, the truth is that we do mess up, and most of the time we cannot foresee our mistakes.

I used to be a devout Jew and I assured everyone I knew that I would be Jewish for the rest of my life. I was on my way to moving to a religious community to live the rest of my life when one night, while under a fever, I became an atheist. Now, I'm an Orthodox Christian. How could I have foreseen my life's trajectory? Granted, I didn't murder anyone, but I certainly did not anticipate become militantly anti-religious (which came with a plethora of blasphemous sins) before then joining the one religion I at the time had opposed the most (Christianity).

I know people who vowed they would never have sex before marriage, but they did. Do you think those people were supposed to be immune to temptation because of their commitments?

Are true saved ransomed Christians going to constantly mess up in sins to death, the sins listed as disqualifying one from the Kingdom, as being said that one has no more sacrifice for sins if one does it, such as sexual immorality and false oaths? And can something even be considered a "mess up" or is that something that is premeditated and rebellion against the Holy One? And if a truly saved Christian does something like that is it not true that they have just cast away there birthright for a piece of meat like Esau? And isn't it going to be virtually impossible for one such as that to be restored? Does Hebrews 6 and 10 mean what it says? Does Romans 6 mean what it says when it says the Christian life is one of victory over sin, not messing up. Is one really a slave to whom he obeys, whether obedience to righteousness and life, or sin to death and destruction?

Surely we can throw away the gift of righteousness. It could happen to us, so we should fear, lest we end up being overcome. This is totally true. But I mean to say one can't have some assurance he won't sin to death if he puts his mind to it and keeps his eyes on his Lord is a little worrisome.

I also want to point out if I did anything heinous like those things that I am confident I would lose my salvation and damn myself to the Lake of Fire forever, with no hope of being restored. "I we sin willfully after we come to the full knowledge of the truth... "

Tony

You're confident that you have salvation now? Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." And you're also confident that God would not save you if you do some unspeakable evil? Jesus says "judge not", and he never appended that with "except yourself".

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

You're confident that you have salvation now? Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." And you're also confident that God would not save you if you do some unspeakable evil? Jesus says "judge not", and he never appended that with "except yourself".

Many Scriptures speak of those who believe already being saved. Examples:

Quote

"[5:13] I have written these things to you who believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have everlasting life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God."--MKJV

"[2:5] (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), [2:6] and has raised [us] up together and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, [2:7] so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in [His] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [2:8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God,"--Ephesians MKJV

There are also Scriptures that speak of not yet having attained eternal life but having it once we endure till the end. Examples:

Quote

"[24:13] But he who endures to the end, this one will be saved."--Matthew MLV

"[3:12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. [3:13] My brothers, I do not count myself to have taken possession, but one [thing I do], forgetting the things behind and reaching forward to the things before,"--Philippians MKJV

As long as we repent and continue to acceptably serve the Lord in reverent fear, we can have assurance of salvation.

Quote

"[3:21] Beloved, if our heart does not accuse us, we have confidence toward God. [3:22] And whatever we ask, we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. [3:23] And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. [3:24] And he who keeps His commandment dwells in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave to us."--1John MKJV

The Scripture you speak of, "judge not," in context is referring to hypocritical judgments. Scripture tells us to judge however, in a righteous manner.

Quote

"[7:24] Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment."--John MKJV

"[2:15] But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one. [...] [6:1] Do any of you dare, when you have a matter against another, to go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? [6:2] Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [6:3] Do you not know that we shall judge angels, not to mention [the things] of [this] life? [6:4] If, then, you truly have judgments of [the things] of [this] life, set those who are least esteemed in the church [to judge]. [6:5] For I speak to your shame. [Is it] so [that] there is not a wise one among you, not even one in your midst who shall be able to judge between his brother? [6:6] But brother goes to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. [6:7] Indeed then there is already on the whole a failure among you, that you have lawsuits with yourselves. Why not instead be wronged? Why not instead be defrauded? [6:8] But you do wrong and defraud, and these things to brothers. [6:9] Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, [6:10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God. [6:11] And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."--1Corinthians MKJV

How can one examine oneself to see if one is in the faith if he doesn't judge himself?

Quote

"[13:5] Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Or do you not yourselves perceive that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?"--2Corinthians LITV

That said, will I make it to the end? I don't know. I hope so. Is it a guarantee that I won't fall away but will make it to the Lord in a state that he will not say to me, "Go away from me I never knew you!" but will say, "Well done good and faithful servant!"? I cannot say. But with God his people have peace.

Quote

"[5:1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."--Romans MKJV

Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony

When one is baptized, one is saved. When one goes to confession, one is saved. At any time your sins are forgiven, you are saved. But that does not account for the totality of your salvation. That's why Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling", not "you know you are saved and have no real chance of losing it".

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

"67. When the pilot that voyageth, together with them that sail with him, and the ship herself, arriveth in a calm and stormless harbour, then let him say that he is safe. [...]"

Salvation is like being in the sea drowning, but then the President sends out his Captain with his ship of rescue/salvation to save you. He brings you into the ship and now you have been saved/rescued. But you have yet to make it to the port where you are completely safe. You must yet endure the storms and winds on the way home, and also you must abide by the ship rules. For if you do not obey the ship rules, you will be kicked off the ship.

"67. When the pilot that voyageth, together with them that sail with him, and the ship herself, arriveth in a calm and stormless harbour, then let him say that he is safe. [...]"

Salvation is like being in the sea drowning, but then the President sends out his Captain with his ship of rescue/salvation to save you. He brings you into the ship and now you have been saved/rescued. But you have yet to make it to the port where you are completely safe. You must yet endure the storms and winds on the way home, and also you must abide by the ship rules. For if you do not obey the ship rules, you will be kicked off the ship.

Tony

I guess there's a misunderstanding here, because you're very clearly saying that salvation can be lost if you do not obey the ship rules.

Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue